<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>One thing that might be beneficial for number 2 is the use of
Aresti for sequences. I HATED it when I first started playing with it in IMAC,
but now that I understand it, it does make life pretty easy. There are also a
couple of websites that really break it down and make it easy to understand. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Arch<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark Hunt<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 11, 2009 9:43 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I would support 1 and 2.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>2 will require a good bit of effort in writing
downgrade descriptions that cover all basic manuever concepts that could be put
into NSRCA written sequences. The IMAC rules are written and illustrated
very well in this regard. Might be easier if a few people worked together
on this to split up some of the work.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>-mark<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</span></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> J N Hiller <jnhiller@earthlink.net><br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 11, 2009 9:08:49 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<br>
</span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'><br>
OK Mark I will hold.<br>
I agree with and would support both 1&2.<br>
Jim Hiller<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</a>]On
Behalf Of Atwood, Mark<br>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:36 AM<br>
To: General pattern discussion<br>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] WRAP UP - Advancement<br>
<br>
Not that the debate on 2 vs 3 rolls isn't fascinating, but....<br>
<br>
Can we wrap up the original discussion regarding advancement?<br>
<br>
I heard a semi consensus on 2 things that I think we should aggressively<br>
pursue<br>
<br>
1) Removing any forced advancement rules (possibly changing to a guideline,<br>
or possibly eliminating the language altogether)<br>
Reason: Forced advancement simply harms more people
than it helps.<br>
Very few if any abuse the system, while many have been compelled to fly in a<br>
class inappropriate to their skills or comfort, discouraging some, causing<br>
others to quit, and overall reducing the level of enjoyment contrary to what<br>
the rule was intended for. A guideline would still be valuable to help<br>
those who are trying to make the advancement decision, however that may be<br>
better placed outside of the Rule Book (such as the NSRCA web site)<br>
<br>
2) Removal of the pattern schedules from the rule book, in an effort to<br>
simplify the change procedure.<br>
Reason: In conjunction with the change above,
virtually every class<br>
is a "destination" class for some, and as such, some variety is
desirable at<br>
every level. De-coupling the sequences from the rule book would allow<br>
greater ease in changing the schedules, and greater ease of change also<br>
reduces the critical nature of "getting it right" the first time,
which<br>
would allow for more creativity and experiementation.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thoughts??<br>
<br>
How do we get this done...<br>
<br>
-Mark<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>